BERMAN WAS RIGHT

[toughlittleship]

Re: DS9 vs TNG

Deep Space Nine spent most of its lifetime as the number one syndicated first-run show on television despite its falling number of viewers. Even when it became a near-serial show (usually, long-term serial shows are ratings disasters -- witness Babylon 5) airing in prime-time in less than 60 percent of the nation, DS9 managed well over a 4.0 average in its final two years. As a general rule, a syndicated show needs to maintain a 3.0 to be successful, DS9 always maintained that despite the strikes against it. Look at the other sci-fi shows similar to DS9: Earth: Final Conflict is regarded as a decent show ratings-wise, staying in the lower 3.0 range and Babylon 5 is the hot potato of science fiction television -- it's done so poorly that no one wants to hold on to it.

As a serial, more cultish television show, DS9 is right behind the X-Files on the all-time list of successes even with extreme disadvantages

http://www.treknation.com/articles/ratings_history.shtml

 

[DWF]

Re: DS9 vs TNG

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/1999/10/29/trek/index1.html

Perhaps the answer to "Star Trek's" decline in popularity is a simple one: It's simply too ubiquitous to remain special. There have been three TV series since 1987, nine films, hundreds of novels, several awful comic-book series and dozens of computer games (many featuring the voices of "Trek" regulars); and it's the subject of its own Paramount-distributed, monthly glossy magazine, Star Trek: The Magazine. Too much of a mediocre thing will kill off any franchise, even one as golden as "Trek."

"When 'Deep Space Nine' and 'Next Generation' were on the air simultaneously, that was the beginning of what some would say was the overkill -- beating it into submission, exploiting the crown jewel," says Altman. "Plus, 'Star Trek' was being merchandised to death -- from coffee mugs to condoms, anything they could put the insignia on."

The death, or at least the slowing, of the franchise was perhaps inevitable all these years later -- especially since "Next Generation" and "DS9" still appear in daily syndication alongside now-daily "Voyager" reruns. (It's hard to tell the old episodes from the new, since they all look so much alike.) And the Sci-Fi Network, home to several Trek-alikes that have begun to diminish the franchise's impact, reruns "The Original Series" every afternoon.

"Star Trek," quite simply, breeds like Tribbles.

"When 'Star Trek' was like an island unto itself, during those years when it was in reruns, there was a specialness to it," says Tracy Torme, a writer on "Next Generation" during its first two seasons and a friend of Roddenberry's during the "Star Trek" creator's final days. "It ran a couple of years, there had been a couple of movies, but there was still a uniqueness to it. The danger you run into when you have as many spinoffs and so many episodes to come down the pike, it loses its special quality. You can't help it. There's so much more to watch. That could be part of the problem -- it's the over-saturation."

Even Captain Kirk says the end is near. In "Get a Life!" Shatner writes that "Star Trek" is no longer special. "Star Trek," he notes, has become just another television show among so many other choices. "'Star Trek,' it would seem has become the worn-out stuffed animal in the bottom of the toy box," he writes. "Still beloved, but old, fraying around the edges, and often neglected in favor of this year's brand new distractions."

And Paramount has squeezed everything out of the franchise, licensing "Star Trek" to anyone with two nickels to rub together. The studio has allowed "Trek's" name to be put on everything from coffee to Beanie Babies to denim shirts to baby clothes; there was even an "X-Men"/"Star Trek" crossover comic book and paperback novel in 1996. And tourists to Las Vegas can visit Star Trek: Experience -- which is either proof that "Trek" is more mainstream than oxygen or evidence of the studio's desperation to wring every cent it can from "Star Trek" before it vanishes into the desert air.

But Berman shouldn't be blamed for what happened I think.

One former colleague, who did not want to be identified in this story, says that Berman didn't even want to do "Voyager," insisting it was time to give the series a rest. The story goes that Paramount insisted on a third series to follow "Next Generation" and "Deep Space Nine," and that Berman reluctantly agreed.

"Rick is not a wide-eyed visionary," says Torme, who is now creating the animated series "Doomsday" with Howard Stern for UPN. "He is more of a professional producer. He always approached the show from a practical level. When I first met him, he was a straight-ahead producer who was Paramount's guy, and he adapted. He became more of a 'Star Trek' guy. But he wasn't dying to be on 'Star Trek.' This was just his next job, and fans resent it because he wasn't a dyed-in-the-wool fan. It's fair criticism, but you have to keep in mind where he is coming from. And in his defense, the amount of work he's put into the show is unbelievable."

Gene Roddenberry's vision and version of the future isn't Rick Berman's vision of the future nor anybody else who worked on the Star Trek series after Roddenberry's death but they kept trying none the less.

 

[Stormrage]

Umm, The ratings for DS9 went down year to year. It is my favorite show, but facts are facts. So I think my theory still holds

The ratings for Star Trek start to go down from Season 6 TNG. They went up perodically during the finalee but that still didn't hide the fact that after Season 4. Star Trek was shedding viewers. DS9 was unlucky enough to be born when it happened.

 

[Rico]

Most shows drop off in the ratings as time goes on. It's called viewer apathy.

 

[Penta]

You all ignore the most pertinent Z-factors.

1. 1993 was when the effects of the '88 writers strike began to really be seen, and when lots of people first really had cable *and* watched it regularly, as opposed to broadcast channels.
2. When TNG started out, most people got 13 channels. Now, people get 100+. Plus the Internet. Plus all the other entertainment options out there. Ratings were going to nosedive no matter WHAT you did.

 

[RobertScorpio]

You all ignore the most pertinent Z-factors.

1. 1993 was when the effects of the '88 writers strike began to really be seen, and when lots of people first really had cable *and* watched it regularly, as opposed to broadcast channels.
2. When TNG started out, most people got 13 channels. Now, people get 100+. Plus the Internet. Plus all the other entertainment options out there. Ratings were going to nosedive no matter WHAT you did.

I agree with #2. But what do you mean the effects of 88's strike didn't hit until 93? I think some of the best writing on TNG came in season three, and four, and they came right after the strike. So what do you mean?

Rob

 

[Balthier the Great]

Re: DS9 vs TNG

But Berman shouldn't be blamed for what happened I think.

One former colleague, who did not want to be identified in this story, says that Berman didn't even want to do "Voyager," insisting it was time to give the series a rest. The story goes that Paramount insisted on a third series to follow "Next Generation" and "Deep Space Nine," and that Berman reluctantly agreed.

"Rick is not a wide-eyed visionary," says Torme, who is now creating the animated series "Doomsday" with Howard Stern for UPN. "He is more of a professional producer. He always approached the show from a practical level. When I first met him, he was a straight-ahead producer who was Paramount's guy, and he adapted. He became more of a 'Star Trek' guy. But he wasn't dying to be on 'Star Trek.' This was just his next job, and fans resent it because he wasn't a dyed-in-the-wool fan. It's fair criticism, but you have to keep in mind where he is coming from. And in his defense, the amount of work he's put into the show is unbelievable."

Gene Roddenberry's vision and version of the future isn't Rick Berman's vision of the future nor anybody else who worked on the Star Trek series after Roddenberry's death but they kept trying none the less.

Well, I think the trouble is that he wasn't a scifi guy. It could have done quite well had they tried to find a scifi writer/producer to handle the project. He does have a vision, no doubt about that -- but scifi isn't his bag. It's kinda like putting an accountant in charge of running the design department -- it's not his thing, and it's not his comfort zone and he'll run the thing like it's the accounting department. It doesn't work real well.

He tried, and I have no doubt he thought it was the right way, but I think he was more interested in looking good for shareholders than making scifi. And it always looks good to have more merchandise.

 

[Penta]

You all ignore the most pertinent Z-factors.

1. 1993 was when the effects of the '88 writers strike began to really be seen, and when lots of people first really had cable *and* watched it regularly, as opposed to broadcast channels.
2. When TNG started out, most people got 13 channels. Now, people get 100+. Plus the Internet. Plus all the other entertainment options out there. Ratings were going to nosedive no matter WHAT you did.

I agree with #2. But what do you mean the effects of 88's strike didn't hit until 93? I think some of the best writing on TNG came in season three, and four, and they came right after the strike. So what do you mean?

Rob

In terms of the general watching universe, cable "arrived" around 1992-93, I meant, as well as reality TV.

New shows take about a year to develop, and before 1992, nobody really watched cable.

 

[Mr. Fergy]

RobertScorpio said:
Enterprise had a GREAT concept. That crew should have been raw for the length of the series. Toward the end they should have been 'getting' it. Watching mankind's first footsteps into an unfriendly universe, via a star ship. was a great idea.

Where they went wrong, I believe, was 'educating' them too fast. By the end of the fourth season you could have inter-changed Trip with Obrien, Malcom with Tasha Yar, and they would have fittted right in by a couple days...Meaning, after a few episodes, ENTERPRISE lost that innocence. They were 'just another' Star Trek crew, just closer to us in time...

Where they went wrong is in putting Rick Berman and Brannon Braga in charge of coming up with original concepts for Star Trek.

They were great in the 90's, but not today.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Well, I disagree with this, partially. There was nothing wrong with the concepts of ENTERPRISE and VOYAGER. I actully liked both pilots. But Berman should have just let the writers do what they wanted with his creation after he put down the seed, in the same way he did with DS9.

I don't fault Berman as much as some do. TREK's demos were getting older and they had to do something to bring in new fans. Sex sells, so they did that. More violence, they did that too. But the writing just wasn't there...but they were right about trying to get new fans. How they did it is where they went wrong..

Rob

 

[cardinal biggles]

I don't really know how syndicated TV works compared to network TV; maybe someone with more knowledge of the industry can enlighten me.

But I suspect TNG and DS9 were allowed to evolve as they did because they didn't have the UPN execs insisting that the show be sexed up with characters like Seven of Nine and T'Pol. I'm not absolving Berman or any of the other writers and producers from VOY and ENT for mistakes they made, but it always seemed like the shows that were on UPN kept getting screwed around with in ways that the syndicated shows didn't.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I don't really know how syndicated TV works compared to network TV; maybe someone with more knowledge of the industry can enlighten me.

But I suspect TNG and DS9 were allowed to evolve as they did because they didn't have the UPN execs insisting that the show be sexed up with characters like Seven of Nine and T'Pol. I'm not absolving Berman or any of the other writers and producers from VOY and ENT for mistakes they made, but it always seemed like the shows that were on UPN kept getting screwed around with in ways that the syndicated shows didn't.

I have always thought this simple fact; as long as it made money they will make it, if it is a syndicated show. Mainly because the broadcast times are not set in stone..

Rob

 

[Broccoli]

I don't really know how syndicated TV works compared to network TV; maybe someone with more knowledge of the industry can enlighten me.

But I suspect TNG and DS9 were allowed to evolve as they did because they didn't have the UPN execs insisting that the show be sexed up with characters like Seven of Nine and T'Pol. I'm not absolving Berman or any of the other writers and producers from VOY and ENT for mistakes they made, but it always seemed like the shows that were on UPN kept getting screwed around with in ways that the syndicated shows didn't.

Yeah...according to Brannon Braga, his intentions for "Year of Hell" was that it was suppose to be the entire 4th season, but UPN nixed that at the last moment.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

People are generally less aware of how studio higher-ups and UPN network people "guided" a lot of the decisions on those shows than they are of the mistakes of the producers.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

But Berman should have just let the writers do what they wanted with his creation after he put down the seed, in the same way he did with DS9.

I think this notion has been somewhat overstated over the years. Yes, it does appear that Berman had more hands-on involvement with Voyager and, especially, Enterprise than with DS9. But he was still heavily involved with DS9 on a day-to-day basis, including approval of the scripts and working with the writing team. I think the idea that he had almost nothing to do with the show after it was created has been greatly exaggerated over the years, primarily by rabid DS9 fans who want to somehow distance their favorite show from the Evil Berman.

Frankly, had Berman/Paramount really allowed the DS9 writers free reign, the show would have been much better. I know RDM has stated that he wanted to do a season-long Dominion War arc in one of the later seasons, and instead he was given just six episodes. And the writers wanted to make the show darker and more dramatic, but they were asked to put in a lot of filler episodes, thus the goofy Ferengi sitcoms and wacky Klingon wedding comedies that were aired in between the gritty war episodes.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The Ferengi episodes were usually my favorites - I liked those actors better than most of the cast. As Shimmerman once noted, he was the only character really allowed the full range of human emotions and motivations.

 

[Lynx]

You all ignore the most pertinent Z-factors.

1. 1993 was when the effects of the '88 writers strike began to really be seen, and when lots of people first really had cable *and* watched it regularly, as opposed to broadcast channels.
2. When TNG started out, most people got 13 channels. Now, people get 100+. Plus the Internet. Plus all the other entertainment options out there. Ratings were going to nosedive no matter WHAT you did.

You're right.

And don't forget that TNG was the first series in a row. The original always have better ratings than the spin-offs.

DS9 did actually good. Not as high rankings as TNG but they had a stable fanbase, probably the most loyal of all fanbases of the Trek series.

Voyager wasn't a failure either, despite some bad decisions which annoyed many fans and erratic, inconsistence writing. It also had a solid fanbase.

Enterprise did have problems because of weak characters and some fatal errors when it came to writing. It also had the disadvantage of being compared with its predecessors.

As for Berman and his crew, I must give them all credit for coming up with such wonderful series as TNG, DS9 and Voyager. Their work with TNG will still be regarded as excellent.

But they did screw up a lot of things in the later seasons of Voyager and with Enterprise which ruined their credit for what they had done before.

And you know how it is, a leader who builds up a successful company, welfare state, sports team or whatsoever but screws it up in the long run by some bad decisions will be remember for the mistakes which ruined the project, not for what was built up in the beginning.

 

[cardinal biggles]

A solid fanbase that kept shrinking every season. I like DS9, but facts are facts: the ratings for DS9, VOY, and ENT went down every year. Sure, there was the occasional spike for sweeps episodes and series finales, but the general trend was down, down, down.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

How does '93 become the year that the "effects of the '88 writers strike began to be seen?"

 

[cardinal biggles]

Beats me. Penta's other statement doesn't make much sense either...

In terms of the general watching universe, cable "arrived" around 1992-93, I meant, as well as reality TV.

New shows take about a year to develop, and before 1992, nobody really watched cable.